Rhetorical Smackdown

Early on in Chapter 1 of Crowley & Hawhee, the term rhetoric is defined in two ways: in how it is used in everyday discourse and what the word means in a historical context. To illustrate both the differences and similarities between the word’s two usages, an example from an episode of the political talk show Crossfire is cited. In this example, Daily Show host Jon Stewart is a guest who implores that debate, one of rhetoric’s truest forms, be the focal point of the show.

This might seem odd to some, considering Crossfire is one of the many debate-centric shows featured prominently on networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Stewart argues, however, that the likeness of debate put forth on shows like Crossfire is as unlike debate as professional wrestling is to athletic competition. Having grown up watching and learning about professional wrestling as a fan (I know, I know), I feel the analogy deserves some closer examination.
On the surface, pro wrestling is billed as a competition between the greatest athletes in the world. Obviously this is not the case, as all matches are predetermined and all interaction by the athletes are as choreographed as any ballet. As such, there is no competition to speak of. One would be hard-pressed to say that athleticism is not involved, however. At the risk of looking silly, I’ll provide this one example to illustrate that point.
Stewart’s analogy, as the text fleshes out, is that the theater that separates pro wrestling from legitimate athletic contests is the same that separates shows like Crossfire from actual debate. Debate, in terms of rhetoric, allows ideas to be examined with the ideologies from multiple sides with the aim of creating an understanding between them, if not resolving the dispute entirely. In shows of Crossfire’s ilk the political left and right are usually both represented by members of their corresponding party. Instead of debate, however, each side puts forth their spin on things, they cut each other off, posture and jockey for more screen time. Crowley & Hawhee state “too often opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetorical exchange.” In no place is this more prevalent than in shows like Crossfire.
In the end, nothing is ever resolved and the viewer is left to make up his or her own mind. Of course the viewer should decide for themselves where they stand on any given issue. But the discourse on display in programs like Crossfire (which the text notes was cancelled following this incident) never goes anywhere. The talk itself is all surface-level jargon and the speakers are never willing to give ground or look at things from another perspective, both of which are key in rhetorical debate. Think about it: how often do you see a program like this where one side or the other even acknowledges the other has a point, let alone that they could be wrong?
Lastly, the common viewer of these programs believes what he or she is seeing is exactly the way it happened. In this world of post-production media, that is not always the case. Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann and many others have been accused of taking video clips out of context and using them to further their own agendas. One need look no further than the Shirley Sherrod controversy to see the effect misleading editing can have. When watching, please remember the White House fired Sherrod before learning the video was edited out of context.
The media has proven to be unworthy of trust time and again. In a realm where there is no trust in the content presented, how can rhetoric even possibly take place? With the advent of opinion-as-identity running rampant in today’s mainstream media, I cannot see how it is possible.